Maintenance under Section 125 is a fundamental right of women and children, ensuring they receive financial support without delving into matrimonial disputes.

ORDER

This revision is filed against the order dated 16.07.2016 in MC No. 293/2014 on the file of the Family court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is a claim petition filed by the respondents under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. The respondents are the wife and child of the petitioner. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the marriage between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent is dissolved by Sec.13B of the Hindu Marriage Act application. Ext.R3 is the judgment. In connection with the same, there is an agreement between the parties that the respondents relinquished the entire claim and a property is assigned in the name of the child. A consolidated amount was also paid to the respondents. Hence, it is submitted that the maintenance application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that they are entitled maintenance and even if there is a relinquishment of their right, the respondents can file a fresh application, if there is any change of circumstances.

2. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. The Family Court considered the matter in detail in the impugned order. The Family Court observed that, in cross-examination of CPW1, he admitted that he is not in possession of any document evidencing that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1^st petitioner during the pendency of the joint application for divorce. It is also observed that no witnesses have also been examined to support such a contention. After considering the entire facts, the Family Court found that the respondents are entitled maintenance. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order, exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

3. Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. is a benevolent provision to protect the rights of women, who are abandoned by their husbands. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Others [2014 KHC 4455] considered this point in detail. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder :

“Be it ingeminated that S.125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the Court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life “dust unto dust”. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.”

4. Similarly, the Apex Court in Ramesh Chander Kaushal, Captain v. Veena Kaushal [1978 KHC 607] observed like this:

9. “This provision is a measure of social justice a